>it's a liberals suddenly care about freedom of speech

>>85152371
gawker dindu nuffin

File: 1474301821965.jpg (37KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 624x352px

Tbh I don't give a shit about freedom of speech unless it affect me either. I'd literally support a totalitarian dictatorship as long as it's in my interests.

>>85152371
>rich people corrupting the justice system
>wtf why do people care?!

>>85152658
I honestly think the vast majority of people are secretly like this.

>>85152658
I support men in black leather trenchcoats and face concealing helmets marching down the street shooting public smokers

>>85152691

prove he paid off the judge, oh wait you can't. LEG DROP'D.

>>85152658
yeah i agree

>>85152738
Ok Rob Reiner but people stuffing there faces on the street is ok

>>85152658
Would George have been different with this luscious locks of hair on Seinfeld?

>>85152717
Yes however most people are also smart enough to know that such a thing is nearly impossible.
>Sure I'd be cool with a brutal dictatorship so long as it didn't impede things I like, invade my privacy, and potentially risk my life
It's like saying
>I'd eat shit if it looked smelled and tasted good and didn't carry the stigma of eating shit

Hulk Hogan BELONGS in San Francisco.

This movie sucked
It goes along with this theme that the free press is under siege when more information is freely available than ever
Gawker was just pure karma

>>85152913
Sure, my point however is that OP is probably virtue signaling.

>>85152371
>it's a Trump supporters only pretend to care about free speech until their guy wins and they can shut off the cameras at press briefings and intimidate the media for telling the truth

>>85152996
fuck off, reddit

>>85152658
Fuck off out of my country then, Nazi faggot

>>85152996

oh look another reddit faggot

>>85152658
me too, im sort of just waiting for a good dictator to get behind so I can take to the street and start killing lefties in the ensuing struggle for power

File: 72c.png (213KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 600x450px

>>85152996
cuck spotted

>>85152960

>virtue signaling
>anonymous

File: image.jpg (53KB, 590x428px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 590x428px

>>85152996

>he thinks not holding daily press briefings and calling fake news fake news is a violation of the first amendment

>court order to take down sex tape
>refuse
>get sued
>use scummy journalists to deliver narrative how youre the victim

>>85153092
People actually do that. I mean fuck we're on /tv/ half of the people on here are always being pretentious.

>>85153033
>>85153057
>>85153078

>someone said something I dont like!
>call him reddit/cuck! That's an insult, right?

Everytime.

>>85153162

reddit cuck reddit cuck reddit cuck

>people that read Hillary's private mail suddenly caring about the privacy of famous people
reminder that if Hogan was a leftist all the people defending this would be on the other side

>>85152371
This is how they go about things- rewriting the narrative.

Gawker wasn't a scummy internet tabloid that openly said they'd post pedo material if it got them clicks, and decided to dig into a man's personal life for the hell of it, they're a righteous organization trying to deliver truth to the populace.

>>85152913
>however most people are also smart enough to know that such a thing is nearly impossible.

i don't think so, sadly

>>85153152
no half the people on here are thirsty for (You)'s and they do every sort of trick in the book to get them

>>85153198
Hogan isn't a political figure whose dealings have ramifications to the world at large.

>>85153198

Gawker was nothing but a narrative pushing propaganda outlet. They themselves advocated and pushed for censorship that went against their agenda, so I don't see nothing bad in it for them going down on that same sword.

>>85153189
seek help

>>85153198
>exposing a corrupt politician's corruption of a democratic process
>Exploiting a man's sex tape which was made without his knowledge in the name of click bait

yeah schlomo, totally the same thing

>generic stacy actress gets pics leaked of her being a slut
>moral crusade in her defense
>washed up fat balding old man gets pics leaked of him being a slut
>???

>>85153198
>>people that read Hillary's private mail

Typical ignorant lefty.

John Podesta's emails were released.

>>85153244

and they were emails not video of hillary getting dildoed by huma

>>85152371
Beautiful and wonderful leftists hypocrisy!
Guys, how do liberals function? How do they deal with all that cognitive dissonance?

>>85152658
I would like you to try and imagine a totalitarian dictatorship in your interest when you're not in charge.

I don't think it can be done, but maybe you could prove me wrong.

>>85152371

How is releasing footage of a guy having sex without his knowledge "free speech" and not invasion of privacy?

>>85153289
Well he actually made the people who leaked it go out of business, so there's definitely more bite than bark there.

>>85153306
same way everyone else does. go to echo chambers and giggle

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>leak someone's stolen sextape
>WOW I OWN THE RIGHT TO EXPOSE THIS PERSON'S GENETALIA HOW DARE YOU SILENCE ME THIS IS LEGITIMATE NEWS I'M A LEGITIMATE JOURNALIST FUCK YOU NAZI

>>85153296
>l-lefty!
shut up retard

>>85152658
Most people are stupid self-serving parasites like yourself, yes.

File: 1469488459836.png (12KB, 431x600px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 431x600px

>>85153056

>>85153383
Ohhhh did I hurt your fee fees?

File: thig so hod.jpg (89KB, 650x608px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 650x608px

>>85153413

Isn't this the site/board that unanimously defends revenge porn/celebrity photo leaks? It's like satire how dumb this site has gotten

>>85153240
Believe what you want.

File: 1487371580384.jpg (12KB, 188x196px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 188x196px

>release sex tape of hulk hogan
>his lawyers send a letter saying "hey please take that down"
>post the letter the lawyers wrote, while triumphantly and smugly stating they weren't going to take it down
>get sued into oblivion
>WTF HOW DID THIS HAPPEN

All of this coming from the same website that posted articles accusing anyone who looked at Jennifer Lawrence's nudes to be literal rapist manpigs. They deserved everything they got for being such retarded hypocrites.

>>85153475
>Unanimously

Yes retard, everyone on the board is the same person.

>>85153227
I really would like to emphasize this, though.

Years down the line, what is going to be simpler for people who want to find out about info regarding Gawker? The multiple articles that, even from back then, tip-toed around how nasty they were, because they were written by the media themselves, and didn't want to attack their own? or more simply, a "critically acclaimed" documentary?

If they can't control the narrative and got off free, they'll overwhelm history with the notion that they were unjustly wronged.

>>85153314
People are remarkably good at changing their opinions to match the leaders they think they agree with. As long as it's "their guys" in power, they will accept totalitarianism completely.

File: heil-hitler.gif (246KB, 614x408px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 614x408px

>>85152658
This

File: 1488749071131.jpg (94KB, 545x552px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 545x552px

>>85153540
You know I see this as the typical response when someone says "this board defends or says [offensive/horrible/retarded thing]"- yet no one ever steps forward and says "no, I don't agree with it". It's always someone just coming in and saying "This board isn't all one person!! IDiot!" and then dropping the subject.

Not really meant to accuse anyone of anything, merely an observation

>>85153475
STACY BTFO
keep them weekly checks coming to Hulkamania
WHATCHAGONNADO

>>85153540
You're not the same person, but you are almost all near clinically retarded alt rightists and boot-lickers. I say unanimous because I've been in numerous threads about leaks and there's never a single person claiming it's morally wrong. Unless it happens to some brain damaged fake wrestler apparently. It really is remarkable how this place has been distilled to a near 100% concentration of human garbage.

>>85153540
I've never felt so alone when I finally realised this to be true.

>>85152996
>telling the truth
>in a country where journalists were already ranked 3rd least trustworthy profession

>>85153615
wanting to oppress those going against your interests is basic human nature.

>>85153636
>alt rightists
>he thinks the "alt right" is a real thing outside of r/The_Faggot

>>85153621
I don't think leaking personal info, in general, is right. Unless we're talking important shit, that involves politics and whatnot, a person's private life is a person's private life. It's none of my business.

That said, it happens. If you're a celebrity, you run the risk. If you're the one who leaks that stuff though, you better have a good cover, cause then you'll get Hogan'd.

No one ever said Gawker couldn't talk about the details of Hulk Hogan or the sex tape. They just said they couldn't host someone's personal private sex tape that was procured illegally in the first place. They decided to defy the judge and keep it up hoping that the viral attention would make more money than whatever fine the government gave them.

It turns out committing illegal practices and defying federal judges can destroy your company. Who knew?

>>85153636

that's just like your opinion, man

>>85153636
>It really is remarkable how this place has been distilled to a near 100% concentration of human garbage.
And look at you fitting right in with the rest of us.

>>85153621
Probably because people who disagree aren't in that thread.

Not to mention it's a waste of time to virtue signal "look at me! I disagree!".

Your current view is thus
>Why won't people do what I want?

Because you're a faggot. That's why.

>>85153636
>I've been in numerous threads about leaks

Cums for the Fappening, stays for the Social Justice

>>85153720
Um, racism much?

>>85153667
Wanting to believe you are right and always have been right is also human nature. People are so obsessed with this that they willingly vote against their own interests in order to maintain their bubble.

File: 1500224819164.png (542KB, 688x530px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 688x530px

>>85153033
>>85153057
>>85153078
>>85153115
>>85153666
>All these buttblasted Trumptards

>>85152691
I love how because a billionaire paid for the lawyers, liberals somehow think that bypassed the judicial system.

gawker is click bait trash I'm glad there dead and this thread should be deleted.

File: boohoo.jpg (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

>>85153762
>>85153762
>logical consistency and morality are now social justice

You /pol/ filth deserve to get horrific diseases, I think even pacifists would agree at this point. It really is like satire how bad you all are as people in every single way it's possible to be a bad person. You're like badly written cartoon villains. Thankfully not even prostitutes want to go near you.

>>85153636
>I've been in numerous threads about leaks and there's never a single person claiming it's morally wrong.

Okay let's discuss it right now:

WAS IT MORALLY WRONG FOR WIKILEAKS TO RELEASE JOHN PODESTAS EMAILS EXPOSING DNC COLLUSION TO FUCK OVER BERNIE SANDERS AND HAND HILLARY THE NOMINATION?

You faggots only ever bitch about the happening, not the ((contents)).

File: patrick.jpg (49KB, 530x664px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 530x664px

>>85153784
>it's another "trying to save face by trying to claim everyone who responded to you is assblasted" episode

>>85153162
kys

>>85153775

if you post one more philosophical musing i'm going to slap you

Oh boy a thread about liberals

File: 1413923798627.gif (1MB, 1430x3138px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1430x3138px

Reminder.

>>85153069
cringe

>>85153840
>You're like badly written cartoon villains

Well considering you're making badly constructed strawmen off of random people, isn't that kind of your fault? Maybe you should take a class? Figure out how to flesh out characters a tad better?

>>85153840

I never complain about low birthrates. I complain about importing niggers who breed like rabbits and over population in general. Low birthrates are a good thing for us and for niggers. You however sound like you enjoy smelling your own farts a bit too much and should just go all the way and gas yourself for good.

>>85153069
>he thinks the first dictator in America will be conservative
enjoy your mandatory public cocksucking

File: IMG_0043.jpg (40KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x375px

>>85153840
>confusing an Oldfag for /pol fag

Smells like summer in here

>it's a /pol/ pretends to care about freedom of speech episode

>>85153971
You can go on /pol/ right now and say whatever you want. It's pretty free.

>>85153971
This. Only /tv/ truly cares about free speech.

WE are /pol/ as it should be.

>>85153971
That's literally the only thing people on /pol/ can agree on

>>85153990
only because the mods aren't /pol/acks

>>85153819
I guess they think that Oliver Brown, a welder for a railroad company managed to pay for all the legal fees for Brown vs Board of Education

>>85153917
>awful clickbait shit has no journalistic integrity
No surprise there
The show in the OP is shit and I'm glad Gawker is dead
>>85153971
>infringing on someone's privacy
>freedom of speech

>>85153971
/pol/ exists because of free speech.
Granted that's the reason their esoteric Hitlerism is larping but you're still a faggot.

>>85154001
Only those obsessed with the craft of the Hebrew Race can combat the Hebrew Race.

>>85152371
>liberals suddenly care about freedom of speech

https://www.aclu.org/

>>85154225

that organization could give a shit about speech

>>85154225
>the fight is on
>donate now
What the fuck do they even hope to accomplish with this? Do they honestly believe Trump will get impeached if people donate enough? Plus the fact that even if they did get dirt on Trump, it's going to do fucking nothing

Why are /pol/tards so obsessed with liberals ?

>>85154402

They want Mike "electrocute the shit out of gays" Pence as president.

>>85153917
Are you claiming some insight about how SJW gawker was?

>>85154402
Wow, most retarded post of the day. These usually come much earlier.

>>85154554
explain how that post was retarded

>>85154554

i gild your post

>>85153475
>This site
Um, last I checked Hiroshima or the mods didn't release any nudes. One person doesn't speak for the site as a whole. That's like saying FB is full of mass murderers because of that one guy

>leak sex tape
>get told to take it down or face legal action
>don't
>face legal action as a result
GAWKER IS INNOCENT THEY DID NUFFIN

File: 1500264880952.jpg (14KB, 250x202px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x202px

>It's a "Gawker writer makes a pedophilia joke as a part of his court defense" episode

>>85154439
Why are liberals so obsessed with clinging on to an aging man's sex tape

>>85153328
They refused to take the video down and then made jokes about CP in court. They had so many chances, Gawker got everything they deserved.

File: eouddgyq0u2z.jpg (61KB, 696x362px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 696x362px

>>85154620
You really can't think of anything the ACLU might be doing under a Trump administration? Like fight Trump's Muslim ban? Or fight voter suppression from Trump's phony voter integrity commission? Nothing at all? Do you even read the news?

Stay ignorant, trumpkins. Politics isn't sports. Impeachment isn't the "main event." People's civil liberties are being fought for every day.

>>85154858
>Trump's phony voter integrity commission

fukken

lol

>>85154858
Trump announced a Muslim ban?

>>85154686
They are not
It's all in your head

>>85154941
https://youtu.be/viDffWUjcBA

>>85154858
>THINK OF THE FOREIGNERS
t. cuck

>>85154975
But as President? He pushed for the policy in that video to become law?

>>85154858
What is voter suppression? How did Trump do that?

What is wrong with wanting to verify if there was voter fraud? I thought the left had been calling for it?

>>85155036
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKBN18L2IO

>The judge wrote that a reasonable observer would likely conclude the order's "primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs."

>>85155147
This ban seems to only block a few warzone countries... You promised we were axing the Muslims.

>>85155200
>You promised we were axing the Muslims.

Actually, it was Donald Trump who promised this. Did you not watch the video?

>>85155259
He's not banning Muslims, tho. He's banning entry into the country for unstable regions.

Why is that a problem?

>>85155259
>December 2015
The post above was worded like the ACLU were fighting a ban, not a speech 19 months ago.

>>85155259

nothing wrong with barring seditious non citizens, it's within the rights of a sovereign state to protect it's borders and culture

>>85153227
>>85153601
Here's something to consider. Roman Polanski has long been tolerated by the allegedly liberal, progressive types in Hollywood for decades in spite of being a literal rapist pedophile. As in, he fed a thirteen year old girl drugs and fucked her in the ass when she told him she didn't want it. They even made a documentary about how victimized he was years ago, and relatively recently people like Martin Scorcese and David Lynch signed a petition begging for him not to be extradited to the U.S. to serve time for raping a kid when he was briefly held by the police in Europe.

But the hypocrisy is there, and it's obvious, and people haven't forgiven him in spite of the cultural powers that be saying we really need to be OK with the evil shit he's done and the law shouldn't apply to him. This kinda shit is less effective than people think, especially when the disconnect between the media and the people becomes too great. And as the 2016 election demonstrated, the disconnect has become fucking massive.

>>85154858
>Or fight voter suppression from Trump's phony voter integrity commission?
I gotta say, I've become really fucking disgusted with the left on this issue. I'd side with literal Nazis over people who actually think having elections that the public knows are credible is 'voter suppression'.

File: 1445285671288.gif (4MB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 175x175px

>>85152371
>it's a liberals conflate slander, libel, deceit, and chicanery for journalism and protected speech episode

File: 1445927242297.gif (2MB, 286x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 286x225px

>>85155521
That and illegal aliens have as a matter of fact voted in American elections.
>https://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf

>>85154646
Don't forget
>show up in court trial
>say you'd happily put up a sex tape featuring a five year old girl (because you draw the line at four years old) while under oath during a deposition

File: 1469405889781.jpg (8KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 205x246px

>>85152691
>It's not fair bros! Hulk wasn't suppose to be able to afford lawyers!
Gawker got mad that a bigger bully decided to give the guy they were suppose to win against a handicap. Fuck you.

>>85153735
>Not to mention it's a waste of time to virtue signal "look at me! I disagree!".
that's like 85% of the posts on this website

>>85155697

anyone but the most fucked autist would keep their mouth shut at that point. wonder what kind of advice their attorneys were giving them.

>>85153069
neither commies nor fascists belong in America
but ironically it would be un-American to feed you faggots into a meat grinder

>>85155819
once that came out of that guy's mouth the attorneys were probably like "well fuck it, we just lost this....at least I'm getting paid by you fucks"

>alt right snowflakes cry about a film they haven't watched
rerun, boring

>>85153360
>...oh btw you're misogynist for looking up female actress nudes!

>>85154112
>/pol/ exists because of free speech.

That doesn't mean they care about it.

>>85155852
>>85153918
just wait until my jackboot is on your throat pussies :)

File: 1446766077123.gif (491KB, 255x235px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 255x235px

>>85153840
>it's a a colon-clobbered faggot gets mocked and begins to shriek that everyone who teases him is some alt-right nazi when most aren't but are now being driven into the far right because the common liberal is such an unreasonable faggot he literally forces people to become nazis just to defend basic and uncontroversial concepts like "borders" episode

>>85155870

ooh put dat on youtube

>>85155870
So what did you think about it?

>>85155962
>to oppose far leftists you have to believe in a world where the Jews are mustache twirling super-villains who are behind every bad thing that ever happened to white people
no

File: 14596671_734129363391681_5662752734386847744_n.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

>>85152371
this documentary was Gawker acting like a "dindu" the entire time.

>>85155860
>>85155819
>>85155697
The actual question, if you're not retarded, is "would you publish evidence of a crime?" In this case, rape of a child.

But because its a crass emotional appeal everyone got their asses in the air.

>>85156042

are we doing the /pol/ is all stormfags thing again

File: The Day of.png (2MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1000px

>>85156042
ok dude

>>85155819
They thought they were in the right and invincible, and this documentary reflects the elements of their social / professional circle which encouraged them to believe that to be true. Why couldn't they make a 5 year-old's sex tape "newsworthy"? They're the free press!

>>85153056
How do you know he's a nazi? Could easily be a commie

>>85156124
How is incontrovertible evidence of a rape not newsworthy?

>>85156096

>only I am smart enough to understand the meaning of the pedo comment

>>85156096
What are you on about? Are you implying if there were video evidence of a five year-old being raped, Gawker (or, now that they're gone, perhaps the Washington Post or whoever), should post the video of that happening for all to see because the incident is in the news?

Friendly reminder this entire fiasco was constructed to make people think

>hey, maybe freedom of speech isn't such a good idea!

>>85156124

that's the documentary I want to see, a bunch of insulated brats going down in flames in real time and not knowing why

>>85152371
So what's this really about? How hulk shouldn't have sued the website for leaking a sex tape?

>>85156150
Showing the video of a five year old getting raped is newsworthy?

Bear in mind, it's about informing people of the rape, they were asked whether they would show it.

>>85156179
It would not be the first time a self-proclaimed journalistic entity published evidence of a crime before submitting it to police.

>>85156124

You can make it news worthy, you just can't fucking host and publish the underage sex tape on your site and cry freedom of speech.

>>85156218
It's not about*

>>85156229
Was the crime underage rape?

>>85156150
They posted the sex tape itself, you know? If they have incontrovertible evidence of the rape, they can give it to the police. You don't just publish direct video of a five year-old being raped, get told by the courts to take those cheesy pits down, and then refuse because you're getting so many clicks from pedos wanting to watch the video and getting rich.

>>85152996
>its a lefty claiming its only ok when his team does it episode

>>85153636

Roastie spotted. Fuck off whore

>>85156218
Your crass emotional appeal can't really obfuscate the issue here. You're describing video evidence of a crime. Journalistic entities have before and will continue to publish evidence of crimes before handing said evidence to law enforcement.

If you want your emotional appeal to carry more weight, you'd have to describe an incident that isn't entirely criminal in nature.

>>85156217

It's about Hulk winning because he was backed by a billionare, and Gawker losing because they were banking on Hulk not affording lawyers. This somehow means the Hulkster bribed the courts, as they couldn't afford to out bid him. It's a dumb fucking narrative that paints them in an even worse light.

File: danielfromsl.png (77KB, 305x305px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 305x305px

A private citizen taking a media company to court and winning is always going to be a triumph for personal rights, no matter what way you slice it. The documentary tries to paint it as though Thiel and Hogan are the bad guys because they had enough money to win the court case and that this was a problem, instead of, ya know, requiring that much money to even have a chance in court against a large media company in the first place. The whole actual event is an indictment of our legal system, how anyone could try and spin it so that Hogan is somehow the bad guy is baffling. Like we're automatically supposed to hate him and Thiel because they have money, as though Gawker didn't. Private citizens need MORE power to sue the media, not less, and they need to be able to do it with less resources.

>>85156265
Well, now you're further obfuscating the issue by talking about the distribution of child pornography.

>>85156307
Anon, this is an organization that was asked, by a fucking court, to remove the video, and they didn't.

Are you honestly saying that Gawker would be in the right to publish a pedophilia rape video, and keep the video online, even if the court of law told them to remove it?

>>85156346
I can't wait for freedom of speech to be repealed/invalidated because of "personal rights" of billionaires.

>>85156374

That is not at all what he said you fucking tard.

>>85156374
Absolutely no one infringed on freedom of speech here. Gawker had the right to talk about it all they wanted.

They didn't have the right to publish illegally stolen videos.

>>85156355
Are you saying you'd willingly lick any boot presented before your lips?

>>85156406
This is definitely an erosion of freedom of speech under the guise of protecting personal rights.

>>85156411
That's not an argument and you are avoiding the question.

I am amazed here. The hill you are willing to die on is fucking /Gawker/. They had every opportunity to right things here, but they didn't because their arrogance got in the way.

>>85156096
No, the question was "In what circumstance would you not publish a sex tape?" and his answer was "If it was a child" which was followed up with "If they were under 5".

He's fucking retarded and you know it. He admits in the fucking interview that he was was "clearly joking", because we all know most people practice their comedy material while under oath in the biggest trial of your life.

>>85156447
How? How is it an erosion of freedom of speech?

Privacy laws exist, anon. I don't have the right to tell people your social security number.

>>85156450
The hill I'm willing to die on is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Just because there's some shit on it doesn't mean I'll abandon it. As that is the entire intent here. As the entire situation was manufactured in order to serve as an erosion of freedom of speech.

>>85156348
Because that's what they admitted they would do.

>>85156483
I knew that anon was bullshitting. Who's 'obfuscating" now?

>>85156496
This isn't freedom of speech, it's invasion of privacy. They could talk about if they wanted, but they couldn't post it.

>>85156374
>of billionaires
Literally the whole point of my post is that the powers to successfully sue the media (on legitimate grounds too since Hogan fucking won, he didn't pay enough to change the law, he payed enough to afford an adequate legal defense) and other large companies should be expanded to everyone. The crime is that you need to be a billionaire to do this. The principle of doing it isn't wrong.

>>85156447

guess they better let ann coulter talk at berkeley then

>>85156447

yes, we should all be allowed to call you as a private citizen a pedophile in need of a good hanging with directions to your know location in the mass media without a shred of evidence.

>>85156496
A private organization posting a private sex tape without the consent of the participants has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

>>85156483
Again, the line was clearly a bait tactic for the sake of a crass emotional appeal by touching upon a forbidden subject. it is utterly ridiculous and deserving only of ridicule.

Of course "jury of our peers" failed a bit there.

and hell fucking yes a sex video of a five year old getting raped is absolutely newsworthy.

Can we stop this has anything to do with Free Speech?
Posting people's sex tapes online has nothing to do with free speech.

Libs are just butthurt Gawker took the Leg Drop.

>>85156581

lawl

>>85156581
>Again, the line was clearly a bait tactic for the sake of a crass emotional appeal by touching upon a forbidden subject.

And the guy fucking took it.

>and hell fucking yes a sex video of a five year old getting raped is absolutely newsworthy.

Informing people? Surely. Posting it? No.

>>85156581
>and hell fucking yes a sex video of a five year old getting raped is absolutely newsworthy.
There's a rather significant difference between reporting on said video and actually sharing it

>>85156563
Especially when Hulk Hogan isn't a politician or a powerful member of the elite that presents himself as a family man and anti-racist.

>>85156348
What the fuck are you talking about? They distributed a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and were asked if they would do the same for the sex tape of a child (aka, the distribution of child pornography) if it were newsworthy (like being a crime, which it definitely would be). Then you come along and act like everyone is just appealing to emotions in saying news websites shouldn't distribute CP every time someone gets raped.

>>85152717
its called being a sheep

>>85156581
Jesus you are dumb.

>>85156496
>please take down that embarrassing footage of me that was recorded without my permission
>FREEDOM OF SPEECH DUDE LMAO!

>>85156612
I love it when people edit out the parts of posts that make their responses redundant and silly.

>>85156651
Not an argument.

>>85156581
>distributing child porn is a-okay if it's news
fucking kek, did you used to work for gawker by any chance?

>>85156331
I can't even get how people could defend gawker from all I've heard about them

File: poltards.jpg (3KB, 125x93px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x93px

>>85153069

these are the people that make these retarded /pol/ posts on /tv/

they think they're killing fucking anybody

>>85156673
I think he might be a pedo who just wants easy material.

>>85156685

shit i saved a fucking thumbnail by accident. i'm going to go off myself.

>>85156673

He's probably the same retard who answered yes to the guestion the judge made about distributing CP.

>>85156639
Son, you're completely misunderstanding the issue.

Divorced from the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" context, the question becomes "would you distribute evidence of a crime?" In which case journalistic entities have air tight protections and every right to do so.

>>85156685
Well they certainly aren't going to anything if they're that tiny.

>>85156581
>and hell fucking yes a sex video of a five year old getting raped is absolutely newsworthy.
MODS

>>85156705
at least you can admit to your mistakes and correct them. good on you anon and godspeed

>>85156639
>saying news websites shouldn't distribute CP every time someone gets raped.

I'm sorry, but as a liberal I find nothing wrong with this. CP isn't some special class of forbidden content by any natural law, its pure conserative thought-garbage and tramples on the whole idea of first amendment.

>>85156708
Not when the distribution of the content IS the crime in and of itself.

>>85156708
There wasn't a crime here.

It was a private sex tape.

>>85156678

because these bumdiggled bloggers from buzzfeed and other cesspools have a lot of friends that were in gawker, they all work in the same zip code.

>>85156650
>please take away my rights based upon emotional appeals

Magnet thread for poltards.
We should always have this. If we made a /poltard/ general thread and kept it up would you morons stay there jerking each other off instead of polluting the rest of the board with your retardation? Cause I'll do that for you. I'm here to help.

>>85156749
Privacy rights exist, anon. Why do you ignore them?

>>85156708
So why don't we see a ton of CP porn sites that host their content under the guise of it being "news"? I mean if it's just journalism shouldn't we be seeing CNN hosting CP?

>>85152658
This. The game is and always has been about supporting your own interests while stamping everyone else's out of existence. Why can't liberals just accept and acknowledge this instead of trying to pretend they're more noble than anyone else?

>>85153056
You are not even an American, are you?

>>85156708
Okay, and in the full question in which it was asked and not your alternative re-imagining of the question, it was "would you distribute evidence of a crime even if possession and distribution of said evidence was illegal?" This is because not only did they think distribution of it was okay because it was newsworthy, but they also thought they were okay to flagrantly ignore the law telling them to cut their shit.

>>85156763

there's no need to be upset

>>85156763
which argument did you lose in this thread?

>>85156740
Confusing the issue, again, we're talking about the "five year old girl getting raped" hypothetical. try to keep up or shut up.

>>85156738
Considering the identified rapist would be in greater legal trouble than whomever posted the video, an arrangement could clearly be made.

TALK SHIT

THE HULKSTER RUNS WILD ON YOU

>>85156805
kek

>>85156749
>please violate my personal rights for clickbait!
I know cuck posting is a worn out hat but I'm pretty sure you're an unironic one.

>>85156807
So why don't we see every major news website hosting CP whenever it happens?

>>85156685
fuck whatever you say kid, I was born to kill leftist scum, im not so soft as you think, it might be hard for your rick and morty loving ass to understand but I have no emotion and no remorse

>>85156763
it'd be even better if there was a whole board specifically for such things

oh wait containment never works and the main reason people post off-topic shit is because it gets no response where it belongs.

>>85156807
Legally, all CP is considered to be evidence of rape. No news site has yet to publish any CP and claim they're just exposing a crime as a defense.

>>85156798
and now you're talking in terms far, FAR beyond the cognitive capacity of "jury of our peers."

There's a reason the question involved a five year old. Because it allows said lawyer to avoid having to actually explain law.

>Dude freedom of the press lmao
>gawker
yeah, nah

>>85156877
Because they are not as retarded as "journalists" from Gawker.

>>85156843
Why do you think this thread is off-topic? It's about a new show on Netflix and the liberal agenda that put it there, honestly I don't see where else it should go.

>>85156891
>There's a reason the question involved a five year old. Because it allows said lawyer to avoid having to actually explain law.

Actually, the question didn't involve a five year old! That's the best part!

The guy answering said his limit would be a five year old. He dug his own grave! He could have just as easily said 18.

>>85156834
Because modern CP is mostly just girls getting naked on instagram and shit.

Been a while since there's been any new CP that involves an identifiable male.

>>85156749
Gawker didn't expose any government conspiracy or fight for the little guy. They outed closeted gays that they so "cherished" (even black mailed them). I laugh my dick off at the idea their undoing was by a rich gay guy.

File: hmmm really makes you think.jpg (460KB, 1410x1280px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1410x1280px

>>85152371
>satirical cartoons mocking the prophet of the world's second largest religion isn't important free speech
>illegally uploading a sex tape of a washed up wrestler is

A lot of this crying is because Gawker labels themselves as some kind of "Journalistic Entity" and thus trying to convince people an attack on them is an attack on the 1st Amendment.

News Flash: It doesn't matter what they do as a corporation, "news publication" or plumbers, if you fuck up enough to no longer be able to cover financial liabilities you shut down as a company.

>>85152812
>what is second hand smoke

>>85156914
Is the thread about the documentary?

No. the thread is about trump, freedom of speech, and child pornography.

File: 1481724798474.jpg (284KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1280x960px

>>85152371
liberals are always full on retard they only know what the media tells them so when ever reality interferes in their lives it shocks them.

They have the minds of children from being so babied and brainwashed hence the whole crying rooms and crayons thing when Trump was elected, they literally couldnt handle reality.

>>85152996

True but has nothing to do with Gawker and this documentary being full of shit.

>>85156963
>freedom of speech, and child pornography.

Actually, the linchpin of the documentary. Those things all involved Gawker and Hogan.

>>85156931
Fascinating. How is it you acquired this knowledge anon?

>>85156944
Or maybe gawker is just the flase flag to erode free speech.

>>85156950

hulkamaniacs don't go apeshit and declare fatwas.(mostly)

>>85156996
What was eroded here?

This was just holding up privacy laws.

>>85156963
>the thread is about trump, freedom of speech, and child pornography

so basically "Television and Film" in a nutshell

>>85156996
There was no loss of free speech here.

>>85156957
This totally is an attack on free speech though. Not specifically because gawker is a "journalistic entity," but because how people feel about gawker is likely to cause people to walk sideways away from freedom of speech.

>>85156996
Or you're just retarded.

File: 61231994_p0_master1200.jpg (208KB, 977x1171px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 977x1171px

>free speech doesn't apply if I'm offended or outraged, in fact I'll censor you on-air if you start saying something I don't like!
>but you can't be offended or retaliate against anything we posed you fucking fascist!

File: 1434652981046.jpg (451KB, 1438x1968px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1438x1968px

>>85157034
Invading people's privacy is not news nor free speech.

>>85157034

that make no sense

>>85157034
>This totally is an attack on free speech though.
it's not.

>>85157014
I think you mean reinforcing and empowering.

Every precedent that any case establishes stays on the books forever. This case set new precedents. The fappening set others. These are all attacks on free speech that basically boil down to whenever someone rich gets their feelings hurt, they can get whatever they want.

>>85157034
>people to walk sideways away from freedom of speech

How?

>>85156996
you dont need to imagine some conspiracy to erode free speech involving gawker, just look at every other country besides the US where they arrest you for hate speech, theyre about to take a fatty redpill suppository when the EU decides that "criticizing the liberal government" constitutes hate speech

>>85152691
>oh noes we were gonna abuse the legal system and block the trial with our army of lawyers and their paper-flood but he got money to fight us off!
> ITS NOT FAIR! THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT NOW!

>>85157103
check the thread. Filled with people happy to hand over free speech just because they don't like gawker.

>>85157034
Then I guess they shouldn't
1) Profit of the likeness of someone without their permission, and
2) Invade their privacy

If you don't do these things as plumbers.. I mean as a "News Publication" then you'll probably be fine.

>>85157102
>This case set new precedents

That you can't disobey a court of law when they ask you to remove an illegally posted video of a private citizen?

>someone rich gets their feelings hurt, they can get whatever they want

Hogan wasn't rich though! He went up against a multi-media dollar media organization!

>>85157141
I'm happy that giant companies can't invade my privacy, break the law, defy court orders, and get away with it just because they have more money than me.

File: 1452833654263.png (517KB, 984x688px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 984x688px

>>85157102
>These are all attacks on free speech that basically boil down to whenever someone rich gets their feelings hurt, they can get whatever they want.

Hulk wasn't all that rich and Gawker targeted him knowing that. Then got upset when someone bigger than them served them the same shit right back. Gawker was playing the same game they bitch about "big fat cats" doing to them.

>>85157141
I'm not handing over my free speech because I don't go around profiting off of someone without their consent, nor do I invade their privacy.

>>85157141
I've been reading the thread. You think free speech means large media entities have the right to distribute information from private citizens.

/containmentthread/ general

>>85157159
Exactly, Hogan should have lost because he had less money. It's not fair for someone else to give him money to even the field.

>>85157141

>I'm a delusional tard who needs to push my make-believe narrative of others to make my non-existing point.

File: CNN consistency.jpg (72KB, 750x584px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 750x584px

>>85152996
>implying CNN aren't fake news

>>85157182
"illegally obtained information from private citizens".

>>85157102
3rd Party Litigation Funding is not a new precedent. It happens relatively regularly. It happening to Gawker wasn't anything new

File: 1481850932431.jpg (34KB, 465x551px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 465x551px

>>85157208
I love the doublethink.

>>85157141
I don't think Breitbart posting Obama's sex tape would be an issue anyone would defend them on either, dude.

>>85157102
Yes, it is a problem you have to be rich in order to protect your basic rights as a private citizen from a media corporation in court.

>>85157210
Yes, illegally obtained. That's why a court order demanded they they remove the video, which they failed to due, and as such, lost their case.

>>85157141
doesn't matter how many times you repeat invasion of privacy is free speech, it doesn't make it true. when hackers infiltrate a database and distribute people's personal information and credit card details, it's not an exercise of free speech either.

>>85157210
publication of private facts was one of the charges that Gawker was found viable of. They did that. Jury nailed them on it.

>>85157141
Have you even made a single attempt to explain legally what Gawker did is free speech and not a violation of the long established rights of the individual Hogan's team cited?

>>85157141
you're retarded

>>85157244
thanks
>>85157231
for
>>85157227
validating
>>85157223
my
>>85157177
correct
>>85157202
position
>>85157182
with
>>85157174
emotional
>>85157179
response

Damn this nigga's getting some mad (You)s. I hope we made his Tuesday.

>>85157294

when you fuck up just pretend you were trolling the the whole time

>>85157141

>post CP
DUDE FREE SPEECH

>break into someone's house and film them
DUDE FREE SPEECH

>refuse to take down stolen taping after being told to do so by a federal judge
DUDE FREE SPEECH

It's all the same shit, just different flavors. The law was upheld as it should be.

>>85157294

Thanks for proving you have no argument.

>>85157294
Hulk's nudes literally had nothing to do with freedom of speech.

>>85157300
Please respond to him directly when discussing him (like so: >>85157294). Denying him (You)s is a suppression of the free press.

>>85157294
>I've been reading the thread. You think free speech means large media entities have the right to distribute information from private citizens.

Where's your argument to this? Why does a corporation have the right to spread individual people's information?

>>85157294
>providing a perfect analogy of credit card information theft is an emotional response
nice argument you got there

>>85157294
This entire documentary was just an emotional response. You are wrong.

>>85155962
I'm really tired of this episode. It's been happening too often.

Hitler was right I guess.

>>85157300
whats funny is I never really get anything out of attention. Just makes me sad all these people are so eager to throw away their rights because they don't like gawker. That years from now we'll be able to look back and realize all it took for people to abandon free speech was for our corporate masters to rub a little shit on it.

>>85157357

our corporate masters do a lot for us and we should respect them

>>85157357
Wait which corporate master are you referring to, Thiel or Gawker?

>>85157357

So you don't mind having your credit card info and personal details published by CNN along with a picture of your dick and face.

>>85157357
>corporate masters

Oh Jesus. He says this in the same breath where he defends a corporation illegally distributing a private citizen's information, and went above the law by going against a court order.

Yeah man, you earned this (You). I know you gotta work in media, cause you write some damn good clickbait.

All you people defending Gawker, here is the 5 things that Hogan Charged against Gawker in court, and won on
>Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion
>Publication of Private Facts
>Negligible Infliction of Emotional Distress
>Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

and here's the big one, the one that is an actual LAW and basically has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment
>Violation of the Florida Common Law Right of Publicity

So, did Gawker do these things? Yes, or No.

>>85157394
Neither.

>>85157357
>dude films self raping a child
>sells it
>gets arrested
>dude, you can't arrest me, I wrote a news article once! free speech!
>news orgs all rush to argue that arresting this man is the beginning of the end of the free press, because if you ever act as the free press in any capacity, the legal system is no longer allowed to apply laws to you

>>85157400
Its okay if these issues are confusing you. They were designed to.

>>85157444
Not an argument.

>>85157441
What an idiotic hypothetical scenario that is absolutely irrelevant to literally everything.

Good work.

>>85157034

Serious question - how do you feel about the CHarlie Hebdo cartoons?

File: 1434568035413.gif (216KB, 600x790px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 600x790px

>>85157474
They went too far.

>>85157474

>They should be banned because they are hate speech against a peaceful group of people.

>>85157472
How is it irrelevant? Explain how each of these legal violations were Gawker acting as the free press: >>85157418
Or do you concede that the issue was not to suppress the free press but to enforce other laws, whether or not Gawker publishes news articles elsewhere on their website?

>>85157474
irrelevant, government didn't get involved

>>85157509
No, journalists are immune from the law as long as they are being journalists.

File: nathan2.jpg (46KB, 250x370px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 250x370px

>>85157294
Even merely pretending to be retarded you manage to come off as more intelligent than the people who put this documentary together since they had to go through the same bullshit thought process as you, only non ironically and instead of a few posts they had to make an entire film and try to sell it as a serious documentary about the chilling effects of Hogan on the free press.

Seriously, does anyone view this documentary seriously?

Even if you stick to your guns that Gawker was doin "muh first Amendment"

They Profited off Hogan's likeness without his authorization. They got NAILED on this, there isn't even a fucking doubt about it. This alone would have been enough to legitimately sink them still.

>>85157537
Well it's too bad for them they weren't being journalists then.

>>85153769
>Hulk Hogan sex tape
>racist
What in bloody fucking hell are you talking about, you insufferable ass?

>>85157573
He's confusing the sex tape with the leaked phone recording that had nothing to do with the case but Gawker wanted to admit into evidence to prove that Hogan was a bad guy and that makes what they did ok.

>>85152371
How much of the story did they have to stretch to make Gawker the victims in this case? Eveyone but blue checkmarks were happy when the news came out they were dead. Its like they never even existed now.

File: 1456332631_maxresdefault-520x293.jpg (58KB, 520x293px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 520x293px

>>85157488
>my brain after reading that comic

>>85157552
I'm anti-IP too.

>>85157573

I'll take a go
>by defending Hulk and his right to privacy you are defending racism because Hulk said the word nigger in the sextape.

I'm sure he was being ironic about it.

>>85156096
Why would you publish the rape of a child instead of giving it to the authorities?

>>85157552
This is an important point in light of the "corporate masters" bullshit. This verdict was a testimant that large media companies couldn't use the veil of "journalism" to pursue lucrative corporate schemes - lucrative primarily because they are illegal to do and you would be the only one doing it.

>>85157600
They're wrong, but, the fact they pushed the issue at all and lost is specifically how our corporate masters are seeking to erode free speech.

>>85157651
Who is the corporate master?

>>85152371
it wasn't "freedom of speech", obviously
>wahhh why can't we post sex tapes with impunity
>wahhh why do we have consequences for our illicit actions
>wahhh feel bad for our shitty click-bait news conglomerate

>>85157626
Because the rapist is the chief of police?

>>85157651
media and journalists are the corporate masters.

>>85157651
Hey buddy, what do you think Gawker is?

>>85157694
This was a case of the whole sacrificing a small, vestigial, rightfully reviled chunk in a play on a longer game.

They're coming for free speech, this is just a piece of it.

>>85157724
Innocent scrappy underdogs fighting for truth justice and the American way.

>this faggot still conflating freedom of speech with invasion of privacy
jej

>>85157651

but the corporate masters don't have that kind of power in the end. i'd be more worried about governments investing billions into internet kill switches and artificially intelligent correctors that can edit what you see and hear.

>>85157742
So the media did it to itself?

>>85157761
Citizens united, 2010.

>>85157775
This is a thread about one media entity putting out a documentary about the destruction of another media entity.

>>85157817
Well as long as Netflix doesn't start posting CP or sex tapes I don't see what they have to worry about.

Before this thread closes just wanna mention that CNN is fake news.

>>85157742
But how is it related if the case has nothing to do with free speech? It's about not being able to profit (via selling ads) off illegally obtained pornography. That's not free speech, that's not journalism, that's just crime for financial gain. The consequence of it was that they had to sell off their sites to Univision, but if working for a media organization gave you a blank check to commit unrelated crimes, we'd have crime lords paying media organizations to put them on payroll left and right.

>>85157357
Makes me sad when idiots are so eager to throw away the legal system just because they don't like rich people. You're the kind of moron who cries about free speech when Gawker loses a fair trial but thinks punching a self-professed nazi is ok.

I'm going to run a news site that mostly covers how piracy is hurting the movie industry. As proof and evidence of this I'm going to link to torrents and host streams of popular movies. This is free speech because it's all in the interest of reporting on the topic.

>>85157883

it's only free speech when you're hurling a brick at ann coulter

>corporate masters

Oh please. How many of these bleeding hearts buy their groceries at Whole Foods before getting a chai latte at Starbucks while checking Twitter on their iPhone?

>>85155422
nah man the bill of rights applies to all humans and not just americans you fascist

>>85152658
>>85152806
>>85153069
>>85156787

That's just juvenile.
You're enjoying that very freedom right now just by posting here and saying that.
Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of a stable society and without it, you regress into groupthink where no other idea is allowed other than the ones sactioned by your own group. Suppressing it, suppresses new ideas that, while you may or may not agree with, may someday be useful where you might be able to use that newly acquired information instead of dying.

You only like to suppress freedom of speech if it suits you, but when it isn't you're just gonna fight for it anyway. Typical faggot behavior.